Home › Forums › Bais Medrash › Why Do Girls Have to Cover Their Legs? › Reply To: Why Do Girls Have to Cover Their Legs?
“how the Shulchan Aruch does not mean that one has to wear a kippah”
Just had this discussion yesterday at minchah, when someone incorrectly claimed that the S”A required a yarmulke. Any haircovering will do, as seen in numerous communities, particularly in Europe, where no Jew wears a yarmulke outside of shul or home. (When I first went to Europe I was given a stern warning by a rabbi not to unfavorably judge Jews who wear other forms of headcovering outside of shul.)
“A pantsuit is certainly dignified.”
I’ve seen women praying while wearing trousers in numerous modern orthodox synagogues. Perhaps more importantly, I recall Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin quoting his grandfather as saying that loose trousers were fine for women. Anyone able to confirm (or disprove)?
“women don’t ride normally on animals”
Not any more. But a century or two ago, women in America DID ride on animals a lot and women in America have been wearing trousers as long as men (only about two centuries). I saw a photograph in the California Railroad Museum in Sacramento from a century ago that was a group photo of dozens of railroad workers for the Southern Pacific Railroad; every single one was wearing trousers or overalls. Women also have been wearing trousers in the Muslim world for a long time. Because of this, the argument that trousers are “beged ish” is problematic.
“the whole pisuk raglayim thing is not that pashut, and not universally agreed upon.”
The Religious Zionist Kibbutz movement explicitly permits women to wear trousers, except on Shabat.
“The Gemara in Pesachim seems to say that riding normally (not sidesaddle) is Muttar if there’s some extenuating circumstances (e.g. fear or falling off)”
I’m not a posek, but sidesaddle should be asur. It is dangerous.